Viking Expeditions Thread

[Mike07]

4 minutes ago, Ktwofish said:

Apparently there were 3 trips total last season that had medical emergencies (based on FB posts.) Unfortunately, we could not reach a nearby island with an airstrip, so we had to make the trip back across the Drake at high speed.  Two sea days and a day in Port Stanley, Falklands, was not a good substitute for 3 days in Antarctica.  Viking gave us 25 percent of our paid cruise fare, which is OK, I guess.  I called Viking because there was a discrepancy with my 25 percent calculation.  They deducted $500 from our paid cruise fare for the one night in Buenos Aires, which I thought was lame.  

 

 

Oof... that's rough a worst than I thought. I would have been disappointed if that happened to us.

[Ktwofish]

22 minutes ago, Mike07 said:

 

 

Oof... that's rough a worst than I thought. I would have been disappointed if that happened to us.

There was a whole ship of disappointed passengers.  Of course, we all understood it was necessary to return to Ushuaia.  Still, it was a big disappointment after traveling to the “end of the world.”

[Breckski]

1 hour ago, Mike07 said:

 

 

1. The ship has too many people even though it's like 368 or 398 or something like that. Antarctica agreements restrict ship operators from putting more than 100 people on shore at any given time.

2. The way the tours are handled. Too many people for the zodiaks, SOBs, and kayaks. I think Viking is the only one that has SOBs though.

3. Viking would never "push into the ice" as I've seen from other operators. Cue, Gary Bembridge on Youtube and his experience with Ponant (Granted, they're a French line and I wouldn't go with Ponant on anything)

4. The whole jack******* nature of the shore excursions because the ship is too big.

5. No Polar bear plunge (not even entirely sure they did that fake pool plunge on my trip)

6. As I mentioned above..... stuff like kayaking, if you don't have a reservation, it's standby and GFL if you get on the tour, because there are so many people. The actual ship never feels crowded. It feels crowded doing the whole point of the trip (shore excursions with the toys).

 

Great experience, the Polaris and Octantis are fantastic vessels. But, I know roughly what competitors charge and Viking would have to undercut said competitors a lot for me to go with them again. I have about 30 days on the Polaris between an Antarctica and Chilean Fjords trip. I absolutely would sail Viking again on an expedition ship, but Antarctica... the price is going to have to be exceptional, because I'm not going to quibble over up to $15k with how much time it took for me to get to Ushuaia. (I'm from NA... nothing went wrong on the flights)

 

Again, zero regrets for taking Viking. They delivered the experience the brochure promised. But, it's a more competitive market than "Viking goes there, I'm going with them b/c I know them!". To be fair, I'm more active and younger than 95% of the viking clientele. I also have more days on Viking than probably 75% of their clients. So, what I'm looking for is maybe not what everybody else is looking for.

We're using Seabourn this December for our trip to Antartica for several of the reasons you state but primarily the 30% fewer guests.  And one item you didn't mention, a larger stateroom with a true balcony.

 

We've enjoyed our Viking experiences, but do not fall into the Viking or nothing category.

[island lady]

Brings to mind our mode of recent travel in the past.  Camping.  

 

There are those that go back pack camping with pup tents...then there are those that "camp" in a motor home...with all the conveniences.   I was in the second group.  😉   I like my creature comforts.  

[OnTheJourney]

9 hours ago, island lady said:

hen there are those that "camp" in a motor home...with all the conveniences.

I'll take that one step further even (having no interest whatsoever in camping) in that I like my creature comforts in a nice hotel suite rather than on wheels.

[1985rz1]

2 hours ago, OnTheJourney said:

I'll take that one step further even (having no interest whatsoever in camping) in that I like my creature comforts in a nice hotel suite rather than on wheels.

My definition of camping is a Holiday Inn Express.

[OnTheJourney]

1 hour ago, 1985rz1 said:

My definition of camping is a Holiday Inn Express.

Yep...that works.

[LindaS272]

4 hours ago, 1985rz1 said:

My definition of camping is a Holiday Inn Express.

Had a friend long ago who said her idea of roughing it was checking into a hotel without reservations!